Content-Type: text/html
An Elite Scientist at the Boundary...
Abstract
An Elite Scientist at the Boundary:
The Power of Evidence and the Evidence of Power
in Media Coverage of Science
The media are likely to dismiss a scientist who questions the standard
scientific worldview. But how do the media respond when an elite scientist
questions the reductionist paradigm? In describing his research into the
alien-abduction phenomenon, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist John Mack has
suggested that the conventional paradigm may be inadequate. Press accounts of
Mack's work with abductees reveal how journalists and scientists have attempted
to protect the boundaries of the "black box" of science.
An Elite Scientist at the Boundary:
The Power of Evidence and the Evidence of Power
in Media Coverage of Science
Linda Billings
School of Journalism
Indiana University
3333 Eden Drive
Bloomington, IN 47401
ph. (812) 339-8307
fax (812) 855-0901
email: [log in to unmask]
An Elite Scientist at the Boundary:
The Power of Evidence and the Evidence of Power
in Media Coverage of Science
Abstract
How do the media respond when an elite scientist steps outside the boundaries of
"real" science? Harvard psychiatrist John E. Mack's research into the
alien-abduction phenomenon has drawn the attention of fellow scientists and the
media. Press coverage of his abduction studies may reveal how the media
participate in defining the boundaries of science.
Mack is a member of the scientific elite: a tenured member of the Harvard
Medical School faculty, Pulitzer Prize winner, and well-known authority in his
field. In public statements about his abduction work, he has asserted that this
research is legitimate. He also has raised questions about the utility and
validity of the standard scientific paradigm; scientists and journalists appear
to find these questions unsettling or even unacceptable.
Analyzing media coverage of Mack's abduction research will improve understanding
of how scientists use the media to fend off challenges to their sanctioned world
view and how the media play a role in maintaining the cultural authority of
science. Perhaps the gravest kind of threat to power is a challenge from within
the power elite: dissecting media treatment of Mack, an elite scientist, will
provide some new insights into how the scientific elite operates within the
media-culture-power triad.
The method employed for this study is close textual analysis of stories about
Mack's abduction research published in selected high-circulation daily
newspapers. The analytical framework applied is social constructivism,
focusing on the concept of boundary work, a useful tool in the study of the
origins and maintenance of the power of science.
Boundary work can show how scientists make use of the media to establish and
reinforce their cultural authority. The Mack/abduction story is worthy of study
as it should shed some light on an aspect of boundary work not yet documented in
the literature: a case involving an elite scientist who has engaged in what his
peers deem deviant research, questioned fundamental elements of the standard
scientific paradigm, and spoken freely with the media about his work and his
views.
This analysis considers how the media depicted Mack before and after he became
involved in abduction research. How did other scientists talk to the media
about Mack before and after his involvement in this work? How and why did the
media decide that Mack's alien-abduction research was news? How did Mack use
the media in attempting to legitimize his abduction work and defend himself
against critics? How did Mack's peers use the media to marginalize his research?
What kind of tactics did Mack and his opponents employ in the media as they were
doing their boundary work?
This analysis also necessarily addresses how "science" is socially constructed
-- by the media, Mack the maverick, and Mack's elite peers. Have the media
covered Mack's abduction research as science? If so, how have they defined his
work as science? If not, how have they defined it as not-science? How has Mack
defined his work as science? How have Mack's critics defined his work --
science or not-science?1
News stories generally have conveyed the impression that Mack has crossed the
boundary that scientists maintain between legitimate and illegitimate science.
This analysis addresses whether and how the media participate in defining
reality: what is and is not "real," legitimate science and who is and is not a
"real," legitimate scientist and ultimately how scientists use the media to
reinforce their power.
Introduction
Communication is the symbolic process of creating, maintaining, and transforming
reality. (Carey 1992) The mass media play a powerful role in creating reality
by defining and describing it, shaping the ideological environment and thus
creating public consensus. (Hall 1982) The media reflect and create culture,
which is the structure that embodies meaning and value in society and enables
the existence of power. (Van Zoonen 1994)
Media content is both a source and a manifestation of culture, a form of
cultural mapping that can reveal ideological bias or emphasize deviance from the
"norm." (Shoemaker and Reese 1996) The media play an essential role in
establishing and maintaining the relationship between culture and power by
identifying and affirming socially constructed norms.
Research has shown, for example, that media content leans heavily toward
"official" stories and that journalists routinely tend to rely on "official"
sources who are inclined to maintain the status quo; these practices constitute
one way in which the media participate in defining and redefining norms and,
thus, deviance. (Ericson et al 1987) As agents of social control, the media do
not screen out deviant ideas but identify them as such and even belittle them in
the process of reaffirming the ideological status quo. (Shoemaker and Reese
1996)
The scientific elite may use the media in the process of dealing with the threat
of dissention in the ranks, labeling those who do not conform to the status quo
as deviant and often ridiculing or dismissing them. The case addressed by this
analysis involves deviance from the norm within the elite: a member of the
scientific elite has questioned the utility of the standard reductionist
scientific paradigm. This kind of challenge seems to be especially unsettling,
questioning as it does the ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological
norms of science.
Harvard Medical School psychiatrist John E. Mack has presented such a challenge
to the reductionist paradigm in reporting to the public on his research into the
alien-abduction phenomenon. How have the media responded, and how have
scientists reacted in the media, to this elite scientist's venture along the
boundaries of science?
In the post-Cold War environment, the science community appears to be feeling a
little shaky about its cultural authority. The so-called "science wars" are no
doubt a product of this unease and a significant element of the social and
intellectual milieu in which the case under study in this analysis has unfolded.
Mack, the media, and other scientists via the media have been describing Mack's
abduction work in ways that question or defend the conventional boundaries of
science. While the media have been reporting on Mack's work in a way that
frames it as "deviant" science, Mack has explained his work to the media within
the accepted reductionist framework of science -- even while questioning the
value of that very framework. This analysis examines how the various players
in the Mack case have been communicating about "science."
A close reading of news stories about Mack published in elite daily newspapers
shows that journalists, and other scientists speaking to journalists, are
concerned about evidence, competence, interests, and world views. Evidence
appears to have been of special interest: it is a tool for building and
maintaining the boundaries of science, one that both boundary-tending and
boundary-challenging scientists and journalists employ in validating or
dismissing claims.
What evidence (or the lack thereof) does is establish whether information
resides inside or outside the so-called "black box" of "science" -- that is,
whether it may be labeled "real" and legitimate. Consequently, evidence is what
other scientists and the media repeatedly have demanded of Mack. In short, they
have been questioning Mack's scientific authority. To better understand the
origin and nature of the cultural authority of science, it is important to
understand who has the authority to decide what counts as valid scientific
evidence and how such decisions are made.
Questions about Mack's competence have tended to center on such indicators as
credentials, methods, and interests. The media generally have not challenged
Mack's credentials directly in questioning his competence. Ironically, it may
be the case that recitation of Mack's credentials -- no single piece on Mack
and his studies fails to mention that he is a member if the Harvard Medical
School faculty and a Pulitzer Prize winner as well --has functioned as a sort of
media insurance, a justification for not dismissing him altogether.
In addressing competence, many articles have questioned the legitimacy of some
of the methods that Mack has employed in his abduction research, such as
holotropic breathwork and hypnosis.2 Most articles have mentioned Mack's
engagement in one or more of the following interests, generally framed rather as
"negative credentials": Erhard Seminars Training (EST), Eastern philosophy and
religion, environmentalism, and antinuclear activism. Some stories have
challenged Mack's competence by alleging that he has led subjects to believe
they have been abducted.
A number of stories implicitly have criticized Mack for engaging in publicity.
At the time Abduction was released, Mack had not yet published any papers on his
abduction research in mainstream scientific journals or presented his findings
at a mainstream scientific conference. (He had, however, published in journals
and spoken at conferences relating to the so-called science of "UFOlogy.") In
publishing a book about his research and pitching it to the general public, Mack
broke a rule of science: first submit findings to peer review, then take them to
the public. He also violated a corollary to this rule: real scientists do not
seek publicity.
Most stories reviewed for this analysis have made mention of Mack's world view
in ways which clearly indicate that it conflicts with the standard scientific
world view. Again, while these stories have not necessarily rejected Mack's
view, they have not endorsed it, and most imply that Mack's view is problematic.
For people who claim that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) may be visiting
earth and that extraterrestrial intelligent beings may be abducting humans, news
stories about Mack and his abduction research are about a legitimate scientist
who is validating their claims. For scientists and other skeptical readers,
these stories are about what counts as science and what does not and who has the
authority to make such decisions. For journalists, this story may be about
reinforcing or redefining the boundaries of science. Or it may simply be about
producing good copy.
Strategy for analysis: leading newspapers
This analysis is based on news stories about Mack's abduction research published
in a handful of elite daily newspapers: the New York Times, Washington Post,
Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune. These
newspapers were selected because they are high-circulation and pace-setting (the
Boston Herald was included because it is local to Harvard). The analysis also
has encompassed some of Mack's own writing, for comparison.3 The method of
analysis employed was close reading of content, from the perspective of social
constructivism.4
Stories submitted to analysis were extracted from a total of 187 news items
about Mack found by a Lexis-Nexis search for January 1, 1992 through December
31, 1995; along with 26 stories found by a separate Lexis-Nexis search from the
beginning of the database through December 31, 1991.5 (Thus, stories were
divided into "before" and "after" groups.6)
Analysis of these texts shows that over the past six years, media criticism of
Mack, from journalists and from scientists speaking to journalists, has focused
on competence, credentials, credibility, methods, evidence, interests, publicity
and paradigms. Criticisms have been explicit and implicit. On his part, Mack
appears to have been fairly consistent in explaining his work and responding to
media criticisms: in general, by continually restating and justifying his claims
and, in particular, by rewriting his book for paperback publication in order to
respond to specific criticisms (see below).
In talking to the media about his abduction work, Mack has been challenging and
defending the boundaries of conventional science. His boundary-maintenance work
has aimed to reinforce his status as a legitimate scientist doing legitimate
research. Mack has said that he first became engaged in abduction research, and
has remained engaged, because he was not, and still has not been, able to offer
a scientific explanation for the phenomenon. The implication is that he intends
to stick with his line of inquiry until he can explain exactly what is happening
or prove it is not "real." At the same time, Mack has been engaging in boundary
skirmishes with his peers, trying to expand "science" to encompass ideas that do
not fit within the reductionist paradigm.
A 'deviant' elite scientist in the news
Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor John E. Mack has been well known in
his field for 25 years, and with good reason. He established a department of
psychiatry at Cambridge Hospital in 1969, published Nightmares and Human
Conflict in 1970, received a Pulitzer Prize in 1977 for his psychobiography of
T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia), co-founded the Center for Psychology
and Social Change at Harvard Medical School in 1983, and served as an editor for
a handful of books including Borderline States in Psychiatry and Human Feelings:
Explorations in Affect Development and Meaning.
There is no question that Mack is an accomplished and properly credentialed --
that is, real and legitimate -- scientist by most standards, and journalists and
peers have called upon him over the years as an authoritative source on matters
such as nightmares, child suicide, and political psychology.
In 1990, Mack began investigating the alien-abduction phenomenon, conducting
psychiatric interviews with people who claimed they had been abducted by
extraterrestrial intelligent beings. In June 1992, he co-chaired a conference
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the alien-abduction phenomenon,
apparently the first event that sparked media interest in Mack's research:
~ In April 1994, the established New York publishing house Simon and Schuster
issued a book on Mack's current work, Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens._
At this point, Mack had not published any papers in mainstream scientific
journals or delivered any presentations at scientific conferences on his
abduction research.7
~ In May 1994, Harvard Medical School initiated an investigation of Mack's
abduction research.8 According to Harvard Vice President James Rowe, the
investigation was not "a case involving misconduct or discipline" but "an
ongoing review of Dr. Mack by senior faculty, in a peer review process...looking
at his research methodology." Arnold Relman, leader of the investigation and a
former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the review was a
response to claims which Mack had made about his abduction research "that were
not backed by evidence submitted to scholarly journals." (Orlans 1995)
~ In May 1995, Abduction was reissued in a mass-market paperback edition (with a
reported print run of 200,000), revised and with a new preface and appendices.
~ In August 1995, the medical school announced that its investigation had not
yielded any evidence that Mack was engaging in bad science. The Skeptical
Inquirer -- a magazine published by the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, many of whose members are dedicated
UFO-alien debunkers and critics of Mack's abduction research -- reported that
the medical school had "admonished Mack to avoid violating its standards of
conduct in his clinical research, but also stated that they have yet to find
Mack violating these standards." (Emery 1995)
These events drew press attention and created opportunities for Mack and his
supporters and opponents to engage in boundary work around their science;
examining media coverage around these events yields a record (albeit incomplete)
of that work.
Boundary work, 'science,' and the media
Analyzing how the media have dealt with various claims and counterclaims about
Mack's abduction research will help to explain the role of the media in boundary
work. Media coverage of Mack's work provides an excellent illustration of how
"journalists join with other agents of control as a kind of 'deviance-defining'
elite," defining and redefining the boundaries of acceptable behavior in all
spheres of life -- in this case, in science. (Ericson et al 1987)
But first, in order to proceed with this analysis, it is necessary to consider:
what exactly is "science" in this case?9 Defining, explaining, and
understanding the construct of "science" is critical to analyzing the
relationship between science and the media -- media treatment of science, the
role of the media in the public understanding of science, the ways in which
scientists use the media to disseminate information about their work.
By conventional definition, "science" is a body of objective knowledge or a
method for obtaining such knowledge. This conception of science embodies the
elements of description, explanation, experimentation, and (sometimes)
understanding, and it justifies the reductionist world view that all phenomena
can be explained by examining them in their parts. ("World view" here means a
set of attitudes, beliefs, and values -- an ideology -- employed to explain and
understand one's environment; a way of perceiving and interpreting the world.)
Following from this view, science ultimately can explain and thus control
anything and everything.
Depending on the theoretical framework applied, the world view underlying the
construct "science" in mass communication research could range from the standard
reductionist model to a conception of "science" as a socially constructed and
authoritative cultural practice or institution to the marxist or critical view
of "science" as a means of production, a method for reinforcing the ideology of
the dominant culture, a cultural practice that justifies the existence and
exercise of power and rationalizes the distribution of power.
Thomas Kuhn has asserted that "normal" science is a matter of "achieving the
anticipated in a new way...." Normal science aims not to change but to
reinforce the standard paradigm, to "add to the scope and precision with which
the paradigm can be applied." (1970, p. 35).
The dominant scientific paradigm today, the underlying framework of assumptions
about how the world works, is still the Western reductionist model. It assumes
that some objective reality exists independent of human perception. According
to this paradigm, normal science becomes a sort of fill-in-the-blanks form which
tells scientists what they already know, need to know, and do not need to know.
Scientists use the presence or absence of paradigmatic consensus to distinguish
real science from "sort of" science that fails to fill in the blanks. (Gieryn
1995)
Studying boundary work -- "when, how and to what ends the boundaries of science
are drawn and defended in natural settings often distant from laboratories and
professional journals" (Gieryn 1995) -- is a good way of observing how
scientists (and journalists, too, in this case) reinforce the dominant paradigm.
According to the dominant paradigm, science has unique and fixed qualities --
essentially Thomas Merton's standards of communism, universalism,
disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (CUDOS). This concept of science is
a social construction, however, a product of "ideological efforts by scientists
to distinguish their work and its products from non-scientific intellectual
activities." (Gieryn 1983)
Research in boundary work to date has shown how scientists make use of the media
to establish and reinforce the boundaries of "real" science, debating claims and
counter-claims within the "CUDOS" framework, rejecting or excluding violators of
the unwritten rules governing behavior in the scientific community. (Dearing
1994, Sullivan 1994, Collins and Pinch 1995). The science establishment can
label an errant scientist deviant and ultimately expel the individual; research
has shown that the media can play an important role in this process of social
control. (Sullivan 1994)
Researchers also have studied the kinds of rhetoric that scientists employ in
doing boundary work. (Gross 1994, Sullivan 1994). And they have looked at
media treatment of "maverick" science and scientists (Dearing 1994). Studies
have addressed how and why scientists opt not to use the traditional
science-communication methods of peer review and journal publication and go
directly to the public with news. (Bucchi 1996) "Marginal crisis situations,"
often involving scientific boundary work, sometimes prompt scientists to bypass
conventional communication routes. The public can play an important role in
cases where a scientist is proposing a new theory or paradigm shift.
However, studies of boundary work apparently have not yet directly addressed a
case such as John Mack's. What might happen in the case of a scientist long
established as a scientific authority, a member of the scientific elite, who
decides not only to engage in research that most peers seem to consider "fringe"
science but also to challenge, publicly, fundamental elements of the accepted
scientific world view? As Gieryn has asked (1995): "Where is the border
between science and non-science? Which claims or practices are scientific? Who
is a scientist? What is science?" Where does science leave off and society
(and the media) begin? How do the media serve to enable boundary work?
Documenting boundary work is a way of mapping the evolution of the cultural
authority -- the social control, the power -- of science and scientists.
(Gieryn 1995) Media coverage of Mack's abduction research reveals how
scientists maintain and apply their cultural authority by naming, defining,
explaining, validating or rejecting; how sensitive the boundaries of science are
to questions of power; and how critical the media's role is in the process of
boundary work. The Mack/abduction story shows how the media work as active
agents of social control, defining "visions of order, stability, and change,
and...influencing the control practices that accord with these visions."
(Ericson et al 1987)
Mack's claims of legitimacy and paradigm problems have prompted troops of
scientists to amass along the boundaries of science. An analysis of boundary
work done by Mack, his peers, and the media with regard to Mack's
alien-abduction research should improve understanding of the power of scientists
to define and redefine the way that people should think about the world.
The language of 'science'
"Power operates in culture through discourse" (Allen 1992) -- communication in a
particular social-cultural-historical context which determines specific
meanings. In their discourses, scientists use rhetoric as a means of
"persuasion designed to resolve the cognitive, ethical, and political dilemmas
created by science through the deliberation of particular cases" -- to persuade
their peers, the press, the public to accept their claims, to reinforce or to
change belief or action. Thus, "rhetorical analysis provides an independent
source of evidence to secure social scientific claims." (Gross 1994)
Mack has described his abduction research both within and without the framework
of the reductionist scientific paradigm, relying on the language of reductionism
to legitimate his work but also employing another kind of language to mark his
work as a challenge to the dominant paradigm.
In an article excerpted from Abduction and published in the Washington Post
(1994), Mack described the alien abduction phenomenon as something that he
cannot explain psychiatrically and that is "simply not possible within the
framework of the Western scientific worldview," implying that he had tried to
examine the phenomenon within that framework. "I feel sometimes that in the
mental health profession we are like the generals who are accused of always
fighting the last war," Mack wrote, "invoking the diagnoses and mental
mechanisms with which we are familiar when confronted with a new and mysterious
phenomenon, especially if it is one that challenges our way of thinking." He
thus emphasizes that, although he is questioning scientific norms, he is a
competent scientist, a member of "the mental health profession," who knows how
to do legitimate science.
Mack claims his abduction research has raised questions about essential
conceptual elements of the conventional scientific world view: the origin,
nature, structure, and validity of knowledge (e.g. epistemology); the nature of
being (ontology); and the progress of scientific knowledge (phenomenology). In
other words, he has been simultaneously participating in and deviating from the
conventional scientific discourse.
Mack also addressed the subject of scientific evidence in the Post, stating that
evidence in the form of emotional experience can be just as valid as evidence
gathered empirically. "In physics, psychology, and other fields, the data we
obtain is a function of the way we have gone about the task of gaining
information. The empirical methods of Western science rely primarily on the
physical senses and rational intellect for gaining knowledge, and were developed
in part to avoid the subjectivity, contamination, and sheer messiness of human
emotion. Yet the cost of this restricted way of knowing may be that we now
learn about the physical world with only limited use of our faculties." Thus he
is not rejecting empirical science, but he is saying that it is insufficient.
One especially interesting way in which Mack has responded to criticisms of his
paradigm challenge is by enlisting the scholar who made "paradigm shift" a
household term as an ally in legitimizing his work and his views. Mack has
reported in Abduction that he asked Thomas Kuhn, a childhood friend, for advice
about proceeding with his investigations. "The Western scientific paradigm has
come to assume the rigidity of a theology...held in place by the structures,
categories, and polarities of language, such as real/unreal, exists/does not
exist, objective/subjective, intrapsychic/external world, and happened/did not
happen," Kuhn told him, advising that he suspend "to the degree that I was able
all of these language forms and simply collect raw information, putting aside
whether or not what I was learning fit any particular worldview." (1995, p. 8)
Thus Mack obtained an authority's approval to proceed with his challenge.
In his introduction to the paperback edition of Abduction, Mack has said: "Upon
reviewing the text of the book with the help of colleagues, it is apparent that
my growing conviction about the authenticity of these reports, together with a
sense of their potential significance, resulted in a tendency to write as if the
fact or reality of the experiences was established before the case had been
made." (1995, p. ix) By using the passive voice common to scientific
literature ("was established...had been made"), he conveys an objective stance
and distances himself from his work, as a proper scientist should. "In this
revised edition, I have altered the language" -- not "my" but"the" language
(more distancing) -- "in specific places to make clear that I am reporting the
experiences of the abductees as told to me and not presuming that everything
they say is literally true."(1995, p. x).10 That is, he has attempted to
clarify what he does and does not believe.
In new appendices added to the paperback edition of Abduction, Mack has
responded to "basic clinical scientific questions [about] the status of physical
evidence, the role of subject expectation or investigator influence, the
accuracy of memory, the reliability of hypnosis, and the possibility of
alternative explanations."
To sum up, Mack claims his research is good science: he says he is maintaining
his objectivity, he reports that he is consulting with colleagues about his
work, he states that as a psychiatrist he is not qualified to deal with physical
evidence, he explains how and why his methods are sound, he asserts that he has
been attempting to falsify his claim, and he invites his peers to review his
data. He is reaffirming the conventional boundaries of science by describing
his work as real and legitimate science and reinforcing existing boundaries
between his discipline and other by specifying what he is and is not qualified
to do as a psychiatrist. At the same time, he is pushing the boundaries of
science by claiming that the conventional scientific paradigm is inadequate to
explain everything that is happening in our environment -- for example, the
alien-abduction phenomenon.
The media: where's the evidence?
This analysis does not include any quantitative assessment of media criticisms
of Mack because these criticisms essentially defied precise categorization.
Formulation of a reasonable number of categories for content analysis, defined
clearly enough to provide useful assessments, proved to be virtually impossible.
(A look at some of the stories reviewed for this analysis will show how and why
criticisms are extremely difficult to isolate and label with any precision....)
The earliest Boston news story found on Mack's abduction work appeared in the
Globe on June 13, 1992, at the time of the MIT abduction conference. Written by
science reporter David Chandler, the story was headlined "UFO 'abductees' gather
at MIT; Closed conference to probe traumas." Putting "scare quotes" around
"abductees,"renders the term questionable, and citing the fact that the
conference is closed makes it sound secretive. The story quoted Mack: "Until 2
1/2 years ago, Harvard psychiatrist John Mack...said he was skeptical of the
whole idea of UFO abductions. But after interviewing more than 60 people who
say they have been kidnapped by aliens,...he said 'the information I've gotten
from [abductees] is just staggering.' They tell 'consistent and powerful
stories,' he said."
The story also quoted a scientist-skeptic: MIT physicist Philip Morrison, "a
leading advocate of the scientific search for extraterrestrial life, said humans
live in the same cultural milieu and he finds reports of striking similarities
[in abduction stories] 'a faint argument'." And it quoted a harsher critic:
"James Oberg, a Houston-based aerospace engineer, author and UFO debunker, said
he has heard of 'complaints from people who need further counseling after they
feel their memories have been screwed up by these people'. " The story did not
cite any such complaints. Implications are that Mack had no evidence that
abductions are real, that his research methods were questionable.
On March 20, 1994, at the time when Abduction was being published, the New York
Times Magazine ran a feature about Mack, his work, and his new book. The lead
paragraph alone mentioned "sex with aliens," "sperm samples," "hybrid children,"
and "extraterrestrials," implicitly delegitimating Mack's research. This
article provided a rather sensational account of abduction stories and then
raised a question about Mack's competence, in this way: "Mack's interest in
these patients. and the book he was writing about them, would not have caused a
stir. Except that he believed them." Author Stephen Rae noted, however, that
while many people had written about human encounters with aliens, none possessed
Mack's credentials.
In reviewing Mack's career, Rae continued to question Mack's competence. He
reported, for example, that "of course, people thought Mack was crazy back in
the early '60s, too...." That "too" implies that Mack is crazy now. A quote
from "a friend" immediately followed, stating that Mack "really is, you know, a
do-gooder," and adding that "in medical school he was the first to get into
psychoanalysis, and he had not just one psychoanalysis but two." Did Rae intend
to imply that being a "do-gooder" and being psychoanalyzed twice are signs that
Mack was, or is, crazy? This story also included a litany of Mack's "deviant"
interests: EST, holotropic breathwork, hypnosis, Eastern philosophy....
The Times Magazine story approached the question of proper evidence by
consulting a well-known reductionist and a friend of Mack, astronomer Carl
Sagan. The story reported that Sagan had visited Mack Program for
Extraordinary Experience Research and checked out his research. While Rae did
not report that Sagan had dismissed Mack's work, he did say Sagan had argued to
Mack that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sagan told Rae
that Mack "was quite content with anecdotal cases and his judgment that these
people must be telling the truth because they are so extremely distraught."
While it did not criticize him directly, a Boston Herald story published shortly
after the New York Times magazine piece raised questions about Mack's competence
by reporting what critics were saying, including the Times. "Pointed stories in
'Psychology Today' and the New York Times have suggested that Mack is at best
credulous and at worst deluded...academic reaction has veered between dismay at
his forthrightness and relief that he got tenure so long ago." (McKenna 1994)
This story made some attempt to balance criticisms: "What makes these
[abduction] stories unusual is the linking presence of Mack, a well-respected
clinician, administrator, and advocate for environmental causes. His imprimatur
on these formerly derided tales has ignited huge controversy." The implication
is that Mack validated the claims of abductees simply by paying attention to
them.
The Herald story reported that Mack "thinks [abductees] are telling the truth.
'Something is going on that cannot simply be explained away psychologically,' he
said.... 'It's an authentic mystery.... Something went on here. Something
occurred to these people that affected them powerfully and is in some sense
experientially real'." This story frames Mack as more properly detached from his
research subject than the New York Times Magazine did by reporting, "He believed
them."
The Boston Globe headlined a news item linked to the book's publication, "E.T.,
phone Harvard; Dr. John Mack could use the help as critics rip his research on
alien abduction."11 (Kahn 1994) The piece had a barbed and trivializing lead:
"The big Mack attack has just begun. And no one has heard from the little
people yet." The story cited Mack's legitimating qualifications, describing him
as "a tenured Harvard professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer" whose
credentials "far outweigh those of any previous investigator publicly aligned
with the abduction recovery movement." The story did not describe Mack's
research in any significant detail.
While the Globe story was linked to the publication of Abduction, it turned out
to be largely about another news story, and it was loaded with questions about
Mack's competence in the form of criticisms of his methods, from hypnosis to
bookkeeping. Mack's "much-publicized book...about extraterrestrial
visitations," wrote Globe reporter Joseph P. Kahn, "had barely touched down in
bookstores this week before it came under heavy groundfire from critics of both
Mack's methodology and his UFO-friendly mindset." In one sentence, Kahn raised
questions about publicity, methods, and interests.
The Globe story reported on a Time magazine feature suggesting that "Mack's work
is riddled with scientific improprieties, including supplying patients with
accounts of other abduction experiences before hypnotizing them." The Globe
also relayed the claims of a woman who raised explicit questions about Mack's
interests and methods in the Time article ("The Man From Outer Space: Harvard
psychiatrist John Mack claims that tales of UFO abductions are real. But
experts and former patients say his research is shoddy"; April 25, 1994). The
woman, Donna Bassett, said she had posed as an abductee, lied to Mack, and
persuaded him to believe her.
Kahn quoted Mack questioning his own methods: "Mack calls it 'very legitimate'
to raise questions about how he has gone about recovering memories of alien
encounters. In...a 1992 article in the International UFO Reporter, Mack noted
that he 'had little training in hypnosis as a psychiatric resident and had
virtually to teach myself.'..." Kahn also noted Mack's claims that his peers had
validated his methods: "on numerous occasions...other therapists and researchers
have been present to observe -- and validate -- the relived trauma that subjects
experience under hypnosis....
Kahn closed his story with a quote from Mack: "I have this innocent confidence
that if you do your own work in a comprehensive and objective way...it stands on
its own. I'm not worried the attacks will silence me." Though Kahn raised
numerous questions about Mack's competence, he also framed him, somewhat
sympathetically, as the underdog.
The earliest Boston Herald story found on Mack was published April 19, 1994,
also in conjunction with the publication of Abduction. (McKenna 1994) This
story reported that "John Mack, Ph.D., Harvard psychiatrist and Pulitzer
Prize-winning biographer, thinks [abductees] are telling the truth. 'Something
is going on that cannot simply be explained away psychologically,' he said in an
interview.... 'It's an authentic mystery.' " Mack attempted to legitimate his
research: "Something occurred to these people that affected them powerfully and
is in some sense experientially real.... It isn't fantasy, it isn't delusion,
it doesn't match the symptoms of mental illness or post-traumatic stress
disorder'...."
The Herald questioned Mack's methods by repeating an allegation, reported in
Time magazine and cited by the Boston Globe, that Mack had influenced his
clients to believe the had been abducted. Mack denied the charge: " 'It's
certainly not a question of leading,' he said. 'These people themselves...don't
believe it; they don't want to believe it." The Herald story closed with a
quote from Mack's book, perhaps chosen to illustrate how his personal interests
might be playing into his research: " 'My overall impression is that the
abduction process is not evil, and that the intelligences at work do not wish us
ill.... Rather, I have the sense -- might I say faith -- that the abduction
phenomenon is, at its core, about the preservation of life on Earth at a time
when the planet's life is profoundly threatened. The abduction phenomenon, it
seems clear, is about what is yet to come. It presents, quite literally,
visions of alternative futures, but it leaves the choice to us.' "
Several news stories which were critical of Mack cited the fact that his book
was a best seller and that Mack was involved in publicity tours. The Boston
Globe reported that, "For Mack...these attacks on his credibility have hit a raw
nerve. Mack is in the launch phase of an all-out publicity blitzkrieg ('Oprah,'
'48 Hours,' People, Larry King)...." (Kahn 1994) "Publicity blitzkrieg"
appears placed to reinforce "attacks on his credibility." Another Globe
article, entitled "At Harvard, a higher than ever profile," actually identified
Mack as "the Harvard psychiatrist who has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to
talk about aliens." (Grunwald 1995)
In February 1996, the Boston Herald ran a short, front-page news item ("Show
sends Harvard's UFO prof into orbit") about a program to be broadcast by the
public-television science series "NOVA" (a Boston-based production). The
program, entitled "Kidnapped By Aliens?", was to feature Mack's abduction
research. The Herald reported that Mack did not like the program's treatment of
his work: "The strange and sordid world of alien abduction may inspire an
earthly legal battle after a TV show airs tonight purportedly debunking the work
of a Harvard professor immersed in the culture of the extraterrestrial. Harvard
Medical School psychiatrist John Mack, a long-time believer and investigator of
alien abduction claims, calls the...broadcast 'unconscionable' and 'terribly
biased'...." (Mueller 1996)
The Herald quoted a "NOVA" producer: "We felt it was our job, however unpopular,
to report whatever science said about the alien abduction phenomenon.' " The
story quoted Mack defending the legitimacy of his research: " 'The effect of
this program is to try to discourage anybody from taking the reality of this
phenomenon seriously,' Mack said yesterday. They try to dismiss it as
hallucinations or distorted thinking or people being led by hypnotists, and in
my view, having worked in this field, that is patently false'." Mack also
indirectly explained why material evidence was lacking: " 'Alien abduction is
not something that yields its secrets to conventional explanations'."
In 1996, the Globe knocked Mack once again for seeking publicity. On July 5, in
a column called "Names and Faces," the paper reported that release of
"Independence Day," the alien-invasion movie, "has set off a media shower over
at the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research in Cambridge. PEER, headed
by Harvard shrink John Mack, is the country's leading center for alien-abduction
research. With UFOs blitzing the covers of Time and Newsweek, everyone wants a
piece of the action.... PEER executive director Karen Wesolowsi [said] 'the
work we do is very serious, while this is Hollywood entertainment loaded with
themes of violence and fear. We are concerned that the two not get confused.'
Those concerns notwithstanding, Mack has tentative plans to appear on ABC's
'Good Morning America' Sunday to discuss post-Cold War images of the Enemy."
The Washington Post ran a story about Mack and his abduction research that
cited, in two sentences, his elite credentials -- "the Harvard psychiatrist and
Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer" -- his "publicity tour for his book,
'Abduction' " -- "embarrassment of the nuts-and-bolts crowd," and "evidence"
framed as questionable (that is, abduction "stories" as evidence of "another
consciousness"). (Vick 1995) This story quotes Mack questioning the scientific
paradigm and implying that the abduction phenomenon is not likely to yield
material evidence: " 'The question really to ask is, what is there in us, what
worldview, if you will, are we encased in that requires that we reduce this to
some kind of brain physiology?' Mack said."
The New York Times framed Mack as a thorn in the side of Harvard in raising
questions about his competence. In a story headlined "Harvard officials stress
the positive despite the most recent events in a year of trials" (Honan 1995),
Mack's research is mentioned as one incident in "a remarkably rocky school
year.... Referring to the case of John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who wrote
a best seller on abductions by space creatures and whose professional ethics
have now been questioned by a committee of his peers...Harvard provost Albert
Carnesale said, 'Not one person has raised that with me as having anything to do
with Harvard.' " This story thus framed Mack as possibly unethical ("whose
ethics have now been questioned"), publicity-seeking (wrote not just a book but
"a best seller"), and essentially disowned by his institution (Carnesale's
severance of "that" from "Harvard").
A few days later, the New York Times cited Mack's case in its Sunday "Week in
Review" section. In a piece headlined "Fair Harvard, please meet Geraldo," the
Times again raised questions about Mack's competence, dismissing him in one
sentence: "The number of sensational news stories coming from Harvard this year
could easily fill an ivy-covered tabloid. First, Harvard Medical School issued
a scathing criticism of one of its own, John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who
wrote 'Abduction,' a book giving credence to people who said they had been
captured by space aliens; the nation smirked." (Bloom 1995)
On May 21, 1995, the Los Angeles Times reported on Harvard's investigation of
Mack. "A year ago," the story opened, "Harvard psychiatrist John Mack cruised
the talk-show circuit promoting his best-selling book about people who say they
had sex with aliens." This lead trivialized Mack's research by focusing on "sex
with aliens" and implicitly criticized Mack for engaging in the unscientific
activity of cruising the talk-show circuit. "Before he started talking about
space aliens," the story continued, "Mack was a well respected professor at
Harvard Medical School. He founded the psychiatry department at Cambridge
Medical Hospital, one of Harvard's teaching facilities. He won a 1977 Pulitzer
Prize...." The implication is that after he "started talking about space
aliens," he was no longer respected; nonetheless, Mack's elite credentials are
listed to justify the reporting of this story.
Findings
This media analysis indicates that it is not only the controversial subject
matter of Mack's work but also his professional status that has drawn so much
critical attention in the media. By dint of his long-time Harvard affiliation,
Pulitzer Prize, and expert status in his field, Mack is a member of the
scientific elite. What the Mack case reveals about how scientists and
journalists interact in dealing with science at the boundaries is that the
status of a "maverick" scientist may affect the media treatment of that
scientist by journalists and scientific peers.
News stories reviewed for this analysis reveal that journalists have found
Mack's credentials
-- primarily his Harvard affiliation and Pulitzer Prize -- at least as
newsworthy as his research (in some cases, perhaps even more so). The news in
most stories reviewed for this analysis appears to have been that a well-known
scientist affiliated with a venerable institution has been behaving badly,
embarrassing his peers and violating the boundaries of science. Only a few
stories provided details of abduction accounts or Mack's actual work with
abductees. Mack's credentials may have been the only factor keeping journalists
and scientists from overtly challenging his competence and "excommunicating" him
completely.12
Mack's own boundary-maintenance work in the media has aimed to reinforce his
status as a legitimate scientist doing legitimate research: he has consistently
described his alien abduction studies in terms of the conventional scientific
method, relying on repeated testing, the maintenance of objectivity and
disinterestedness, and peer review. At the same time, Mack has been trying to
expand the boundaries of science to encompass ideas that do not fit within the
reductionist paradigm.
Media criticisms of Mack have been broad and multi-faceted. A very rough
attempt to sort out criticisms in the media content reviewed for this analysis
indicates that questions of competence have been the most common type of
criticism. Questions about competence have taken many forms, referring to
Mack's methods, world view, and personal agenda; the scientific legitimacy of
his work; and lack of evidence.
Questions of evidence appear to be crucial, as the conventional scientific world
view is materialistic and assumes that all phenomena can be observed, while in
Mack's world view spiritual, psychic, or emotional phenomena deserve the same
attention as material phenomena. Critical and skeptical journalists and
scientists have demanded tangible proof of Mack's claims: "real" science deals
with "real" evidence.
The media have reported Mack's claim that he is a psychiatrist and an expert on
the psyche, not the physical body or the physical world; that he cannot, and is
not trying to, prove whether or not the physical evidence alleged abductees
present is real. Thus he has addressed questions about evidence, though neither
journalists nor scientists seem to have been satisfied with Mack's handling of
the question. Mack repeatedly has cited the "authenticity" and "believability"
of his patients' abduction accounts as evidence of the validity of these
experiences, but skeptics still say "show me."
Mack's paradigm challenge, the publicity he has attracted, and his political and
social concerns have drawn equal portions of criticism, going beyond the
substance of Mack's work. Publication of the hardcover and paperback editions
of Abduction have drawn the most media attention to Mack's research over the
past six years -- a conundrum, since most stories linked to publication dates
also criticized Mack for publicizing his book. News stories have tended to
frame Mack in a critical light for appearing on television talk shows to discuss
his book, without explaining why he should not have engaged in this activity.
Thus the media seem to be reinforcing the conventional image of a legitimate
scientist as someone who stays out of the limelight.
Newspaper stories on Mack's research generally have not included much
information on Mack's actual research. Some have offered judgments on it,
nonetheless. Many news stories focused on, and made fun of, abductee reports
of sexual experiences with aliens, likely reflecting the media's tendency to
reinforce establishment values -- in this case, it seems, puritanical attitudes
about anything involving the word "sex."
It is worth noting that coverage of Mack's abduction research has not really
focused on science. Few, if any, of the news stories reviewed for this analysis
could be identified as science stories; they were about Mack, the controversial
and perhaps errant scientist, and his popular book. To sum up, rarely did the
media attempt to explain Mack's research except to question his methods, perhaps
due in part to the limited length of newspaper stories but also likely due in
part to interest in Mack as an elite scientist gone astray.
Mack has used the media to reinforce claims that his research is good science:
he says he is maintaining his objectivity, he reports that he is consulting with
colleagues about his work, he states that as a psychiatrist he is not qualified
to deal with physical evidence, he explains how and why his methods are sound,
and he asserts that he has been attempting to falsify his claims. Not only is
he reinforcing existing boundaries between his discipline and others, but also
he is reaffirming the conventional boundaries of science by describing his work
according to the standard scientific method. And at the same time, he is
pushing the boundaries of science by claiming that the reductionist scientific
paradigm is inadequate to explain everything that is happening in our
environment.
In building upon this preliminary analysis, future research could include a more
comprehensive search of elite newspapers, comparison of print and broadcast
coverage, interviews with journalists who have written stories about Mack,
interviews with Mack about media coverage of his work, a study of media
treatment of elite scientists who engage in "deviant" science (such as Linus
Pauling, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, Fred Hoyle), a study of how the media define and
depict the concept of "science"; and a study of the role of the media in
defining and maintaining a scientific elite.
In addition, a study of media treatment of psychiatry might illuminate the
workings of media treatment of the Mack case. According to Michel Foucault
(1988), psychiatry aims not to understand mental illness but to master it --
that is, to control and discipline. Foucault has written (1995, 2d ed.) that
psychiatry is an especially notable exemplification of the mutual dependence of
knowledge and power; that is, psychiatry comprises a collection of disciplinary
techniques and bodies of knowledge created for the purpose of social control.
Mack's reports on his abduction research hint that "experiencers" may be victims
of social control; scientists and journalists and scientists do not appear to be
comfortable with this point of view.
Conclusion
Stanley Aronowitz (1988) has described the primary elements of the current
discourse of science as quantitative assessment and exclusion of the
qualitative, the necessity of empirical inquiry, the value-free nature of
scientific knowledge, and method as the primary means of confirming scientific
knowledge. "The power of science consists...in its conflagration of knowledge
and truth." (p. vii) Thus, the body of knowledge known as "science" becomes
"truth."
In the context of the discourse that defines what science is and is not and who
is and is not qualified to answer these questions, it is not difficult to
understand why Mack's claims regarding his alien-abduction research have
prompted an outcry among peers. What has happened to Mack and his abduction
research in the media can be seen as a skirmish in the so-called "science wars"
that has little to do with his science and much to do with his world view, which
challenges the boundaries of science.
Mack's challenging of scientific norms comes at a time when the conventional
paradigm of science is perceived to be under attack. In a key treatise of the
science wars, Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt (1994) say the so-called attack on
science is rooted in "the flower power culture" of the 1960s: Higher
Superstition describes these wars as "a delayed effect from all that
science-hating soft stuff such as sociology and Eastern mysticism, the distrust
of the establishment and anger at the military involvement in Vietnam." (Ruse
1994)
Mack admits to a long-time interest in "Eastern mysticism." He has been openly
critical of the military establishment for years; he has even been arrested for
protesting military policies. As an abduction researcher, he has chosen to
question the soundness of the authoritative scientific world view. He is
blurring the boundaries of science and making traditionalists uncomfortable.
"Normal science...is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community
knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise derives
from the community's willingness to defend that assumption," Thomas Kuhn has
written (1970, 2d ed., p. 5). John Mack is not the first intellectual authority
to question that assumption. "The World with which we are concerned is false,"
wrote Friedrich Nietszche; "it is not a fact but a fable and an approximation on
the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is 'in flux', as something in a
state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the
truth: for -- there is no 'truth'." Thus Nietzsche concluded that the
mechanistic, reductionist world view of modern Enlightenment science was
worthless.13
Physicist and science historian Gerald Holton (1992), a subscriber to the
conventional scientific world view, has written that understanding science is
simply a matter of acquiring the right information: that is, rectifying
ignorance, filling in the mental blanks. Scientists are the people who possess
the right information. Public understanding of science is important because
scientific illiteracy could lead to "erroneous policy and eventual social
instability," says Holton. The implication is that any challenge to the
boundaries of conventional science is a challenge to the power that scientists
hold to define public policy and social value -- that is, to maintain their
cultural authority.
Mack has said he became engaged in abduction research, and remains engaged,
because he is not able to offer a scientific explanation for the phenomenon.
For an expert scientist such as Mack, the challenge of investigating a
phenomenon that no one can explain may be irresistible. It is beyond the scope
of this analysis to judge whether Mack's abduction research is sound, "real"
science. As Mack asserts that he is a psychiatrist and thus not qualified to
deal with physical evidence, so this author must say that she is a mass
communication researcher, not a psychiatrist, and thus not qualified to assess
the legitimacy of Mack's work. What this analysis does show is how the media
can play a role in qualifying and disqualifying scientists and evaluating,
legitimizing, or delegitimizing scientists' claims.
Sir Francis Bacon's 16th-century adage, "Knowledge is power," is familiar today
because in many important ways, knowledge still is power. At the end of the
20th century, the power of knowledge enables scientists to maintain their
cultural authority as the keepers of privileged information, the ones who have
the answers, the ones who are in control.
If boundary work looks at "representations of scientific practice and knowledge"
in society; occurs as people contend for, legitimate, or challenge the cognitive
authority of science..." (Gieryn); then the Mack case is important for scholars
of boundary work to study. Until scientists of Mack's discipline and status
prove it is not possible to replicate the work that he is doing, the science
community will have to put up with Mack's confident trodding upon their plastic
"black-box" boundaries. And the media likely will continue to frame Mack as a
scientist on the boundaries, neither securely inside nor completely outside the
box marked "science."
###
Footnotes
1. Discussion of the social construction of "science" is relatively brief in
this paper. A more in-depth analysis of this subject is the subject of another
paper, now in progress.
2. Hypnosis appears to have been of great interest to journalists and other
scientists due to the ongoing public debate over the validity of repressed
memories recalled under hypnosis.
3. As one might expect, magazine features provide far more information than
newspaper stories do on both Mack's description of his research and his critics'
problems with it (and him). Television talk shows were generally adversarial in
their approach to Mack and his work, though they provided plenty of time for
Mack to share his views. Three national magazine features and three transcripts
of television talk-shows were reviewed but not assessed in this analysis. Also
excluded were book reviews.
4. An attempt was made to quantify the results of this analysis by categorizing
and counting criticisms, but categories could not be defined precisely enough to
yield meaningful measurements.
5. A Lexis-Nexis search is not necessarily foolproof: the precise content of
the database is uncertain, and there is always a possibility that a search may
miss a pertinent story. The search for this analysis did not, for example,
locate feature stories about Mack's abduction research in the Boston Globe and
New York Times Sunday magazines.
6. Coverage of Mack's abduction research appears to have received virtually no
media coverage until 1992, the year of the MIT conference. For the record,
analysis of the 26 stories citing Mack found in the pre-1992 search turned up no
mention of alien abductees, no stories framing Mack as anything other than a
Harvard psychiatrist and an expert on psychological subjects, no criticism of
Mack's theories or methods or values.
7. Mack recently published a paper on his abduction research in a peer-reviewed
science journal, Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal of Peer
Commentary and Review (Spring 1996, Volume 7 No. 2). Another scientific
journal published a review of Abduction in 1994 (Sanford Gifford, Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association 41(4): 1290-98). (Telephone interview with
K. Wesolowski, Program for Extraordinary Experience Research, December 9, 1996.)
8. Karen Wesolowski, executive director of Mack's Program for Extraordinary
Experience Research, claims it was because of the successful book-promotion
campaign run by Abduction (hardcover) publisher Scribner's that the medical
school initiated its investigation.
9. A comprehensive explication of "science" is the subject of another paper,
currently in progress.
10. In an interview with writer C.D.B. Bryan, Mack has explained that as a
psychiatrist, it is his job to be able to tell when someone is lying or telling
the truth; his expertise, he has said, is "in the discrimination of mental
states." (1995)
11. Mack rebutted reviewers' criticisms in a new preface written for the
paperback edition of Abduction, published in May 1995: "...[I]t is important to
address some of the criticisms I have received, especially the charge that the
work is an example of a kind of cult of irrationality, an exercise in
anti-science and unreason."
12. As Mack is still engaged in alien-abduction research, there is no reason to
think that this case is closed.
13. In "Principles of a new evaluation: the will to power as knowledge"
(1884-86).
Bibliography
Allen, Robert (second edition 1992). Channels of Discourse, Reassembled.
Chapel Hill, London: University of North Carolina Press.
Aronowitz, Stanley (1988). Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern
Society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press:
Blake, Joseph A., "UFOlogy and the Intellectual Development and Social Context
of the Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," in Wallis, Roy (ed.), On the
Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge. Sociological
Review Monograph 27, University of Keele, March 1979.
Bloom, Jennifer Kingson (1995). "Fair Harvard, please meet Geraldo." The New
York Times, June 4, Sec. 4 (Week in Review), p. 2.
Goleman, Daniel (1991). "Experts Differ on Dissecting Leaders' Psyches From
Afar." The New York Times, January 29, p. C1.
Bryan, C.D.B. (1995). Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: Alien Abduction,
UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bucchi, Massimamo (1996). When scientists turn to the public: alternative
routes in science communication, Public Understanding of Science 5:375-394.
Carey, James (1992). Communication as Culture. London: Routledge.
Chandler, David (1992). "UFO 'abductees' gather at MIT; closed conference to
probe traumas", Boston Globe, May 19: 38.
Chandler, David (1992). "UFO encounters shared at closed MIT meeting," Houston
Chronicle, June 14: A8.
Clark, Charles S. (1996). "Pursuing the paranormal: what's behind the new
interest in the unexplained?", CQ Researcher, March 29, 6(12):267-84:
Collins, H.M. and T.J. Pinch, "The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing
Unscientific is Happening," in Wallis, Roy (ed.): On the Margins of Science: The
Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, Sociological Review Monograph 27,
University of Keele, March 1979.
Collins, Harry and Pinch, Trevor (1993, 1995). The Golem: What Everyone Should
Know About Science. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Paul (1995). Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery
of Extraterrestrial Life. New York: Basic Books.
Dearing, James W. (1994). "Newspaper Coverage of maverick scientists: creating
controversy through balancing," Public Understanding of Science, 3: 341-361.
Dolby, R.G.A. (1979). "Reflections on Deviant Science," in Wallis, Roy (ed.): On
the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge,
Sociological Review Monograph 27, University of Keele, March.
Dunwoody, S. And Scott, B. (1982). "Scientists as Mass Media Sources."
Journalism Quarterly. 59(1), 52-59.
Emery, Eugene (1995). "John Mack: Off the hook at Harvard, but with something
akin to a warning." Skeptical Inquirer, Nov.-Dec., 19(6): 4.
Emery, Eugene (1996). "NOVA's alien abduction program shows questionable
techniques. ('debunking' the false memory theory)." Skeptical Inquirer,
May-June, 20(3): 15.
Emmons, Charles F. (1996). Involvement and Social Control in a Deviant Science:
The Case of UFOlogy. Eastern Sociological Society: 66th Annual Meeting, March
28-31. (Unpublished paper -- based in part on the forthcoming book, At the
Threshold, Wild Flower Press)
Emmons, Charles F. (1996). A Deviance Perspective on UFOlogy and Normal
Science. Society for Scientific Exploration: 15th Annual Meeting, May 23-25.
(Unpublished paper)
Ericson, Richard V. et al, eds. (1987). Visualizing Deviance: A Study of News
Organization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Evans, William E. and Hornig-Priest, Susanna (1995). "Science content and
social context." Public Understanding of Science 4: 327-340.
Fayard, Pierre (1992). "Let's Stop Persecuting people who don't think like
Galileo!" Public Understanding of Science 1: 5-16.
Foucault, Michael (1995, 2d ed.). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. New York: Random House.
Foucault, Michael (1988, 1965). Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity
in the Age of Reason. New York: Random House.
Freud, Sigmund (1930, 1961). Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W.
Norton and Co.
Friedlander, Michael W. (1905). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder-San
Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press.
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from
Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.
American Sociological Review 48(December): 781-795.
Gieryn, Thomas, "Boundaries of science," in Jasanoff, Sheila et al, eds.
(1995). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi, Sage Publications.
Gross, Alan G. (1994). "The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of
science." Public Understanding of Science 3: 3-23.
Hall, Stuart (1982). "The Rediscovery of 'Ideology': Return of the Repressed in
Media Studies," in M. Gurevitch, T. Benett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott (eds.):
Culture, Society, and the Media. London: Methuen.
Hendrix, Kathleen (1986). "Religious leaders' network will set a common agenda
for peace." Los Angeles Times, May 16, Pt. 5, p. 1.
Hess, David J. (1993). Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders
and Debunkers, and American Culture. Madison: The University of Wisconsin
Press.
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual
problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20: 519-539.
Holton, Gerald (1992). "How to think about the 'anti-science' phenomenon."
Public Understanding of Science 1:103-128.
Honan, William H. (1995). "Harvard officials stress the positive despite the
most recent events in a year of trials." The New York Times, May 31, p. B8.
Jaroff, Leon (1995). "Weird science: catering to viewers' growing appetite for
the paranormal, new TV shows obliterate the line between fact and fiction."
Time, May 15, 75.
Jung, C.G., von Franz, M.-L., Henderson, Joseph L., Jacobi, Jolande, and Aniela
Jaffe (1964). Man and His Symbols. New York: Doubleday and Co.
Kahn, Joseph P. (1994). "E.T., phone Harvard: The Boston Globe, April 24.
"Kidnapped by UFOs?" (transcript), "NOVA," WNET/PBS, February 27, 1996.
Levins, Richard, 1996, "Ten Propositions on Science and Antiscience," pp. 180-91
in Andrew Ross, ed., Science Wars, Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.
Levy-Leblond, Jean Mar (1992). "About misunderstandings about
misunderstandings." Public Understanding of Science 1 17-21.
Mack, John E. (hardcover 1994). Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Mack, John E. (paperback 1995). Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Mack, John E (1970). Nightmares and Human Conflict. Boston: Little Brown and
Co.
McDowell, Jeanne (1993). "It came from outer space." Time, November 29: 56.
Masters, Roger D. (1993). Beyond Relativism: Science and Human Values. Hanover
and London: University Press of New England.
Mueller, Mark (1996). Show sends Harvard's UFO prof into orbit. Boston Herald,
February 27, p. 1.
Orlans, Harold (1995). "Harvard Medical School's investigation of Dr. John
Mack." Change, September-October, 27(5): 8.
Ramsey, Shirley (1994). "Science and technology: when do they become front page
news?" Public Understanding of Science, 3(2).
Rosen, Marjorie, Podolsky, J.D., and Brown, S. Avery (1994). "Out of this
world: a Harvard psychiatrist believes that alien abductions are real." People,
May 23: 38.
Ross, Andrew (ed.) (1996). Science Wars. Chapell Hill: Duke University Press.
Ruse, Michael (1994). Struggle for the Soul of Science. The Sciences,
November-December.
Shapin, Steven, "Science and the Public," in Olby, R.C., G.N. Carter, J.R.R.
Christie and M.J.S. Hodge (eds.) (1990). Companion to the History of Modern
Science, London: Routledge.
Shapin, Steven (1992). "Why the public ought to understand
science-in-the-making." Public Understanding of Science 1 27-30.
Shoemaker, Pamela J. and Reese, Stephen D. (second edition, 1996) Mediating the
Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. White Plains: Longman
Publishers.
Sullivan, Dale L. (1994). "Exclusionary Epideictic: NOVA's Narrative
Excommunication of Fleischman and Pons." Science, Technology, and Human Values,
19(3):283-306.
Thompson, Anne (Associated Press). (1995). Space alien studies hit turbulence;
Harvard faculty panel questions whether psychiatrist's research meets school's
standards for scholarship. He wrote best selling book on people who say they've
had sex with beings from other worlds. Los Angeles Times, May 21: p. A13.
Van Zoonen, Liesbet (1994). Feminist Media Studies. London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Vick, Karl (1995). "UFO Abduction Tales Not Quite So Alien; Mainstream Society
Finds Space for Supernatural Storytellers." The Washington Post, May 9: A1.
Webster, Andrew (1991). Science, Technology, and Society: New Directions.
Houndmills, England: MacMillan.
Willwerth, James (1994). "The Man From Outer Space: Harvard psychiatrist John
Mack claims that tales of UFO abductions are real. But experts and former
patients say his research is shoddy." Time, April 25: 74.
Internet information sites:
http://www.mufon.org/
http://www.vix.com/pub/objectivism/bookreviews.html
http://www.csicop.org/
http:www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paranormal_phenomena/extraterrestrials/
http://www.tiac.net./users/kenton/ufo.html
http://www.seti-inst.edu/